Posted on 01/28/2005 4:28:41 PM PST by metacognative
Panicked Evolutionists: The Stephen Meyer Controversy
The theory of evolution is a tottering house of ideological cards that is more about cherished mythology than honest intellectual endeavor. Evolutionists treat their cherished theory like a fragile object of veneration and worship--and so it is. Panic is a sure sign of intellectual insecurity, and evolutionists have every reason to be insecure, for their theory is falling apart.
The latest evidence of this panic comes in a controversy that followed a highly specialized article published in an even more specialized scientific journal. Stephen C. Meyer, Director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, wrote an article accepted for publication in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The article, entitled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories," was published after three independent judges deemed it worthy and ready for publication. The use of such judges is standard operating procedure among "peer-reviewed" academic journals, and is considered the gold standard for academic publication.
The readership for such a journal is incredibly small, and the Biological Society of Washington does not commonly come to the attention of the nation's journalists and the general public. Nevertheless, soon after Dr. Meyer's article appeared, the self-appointed protectors of Darwinism went into full apoplexy. Internet websites and scientific newsletters came alive with outrage and embarrassment, for Dr. Meyer's article suggested that evolution just might not be the best explanation for the development of life forms. The ensuing controversy was greater than might be expected if Dr. Meyer had argued that the world is flat or that hot is cold.
Eugenie C. Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, told The Scientist that Dr. Meyer's article came to her attention when members of the Biological Society of Washington contacted her office. "Many members of the society were stunned about the article," she told The Scientist, and she described the article as "recycled material quite common in the intelligent design community." Dr. Scott, a well known and ardent defender of evolutionary theory, called Dr. Meyer's article "substandard science" and argued that the article should never have been published in any scientific journal.
Within days, the Biological Society of Washington, intimidated by the response of the evolutionary defenders, released a statement apologizing for the publication of the article. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the society's governing council claimed that the article "was published without the prior knowledge of the council." The statement went on to declare: "We have met and determined that all of us would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings." The society's president, Roy W. McDiarmid, a scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey, blamed the article's publication on the journal's previous editor, Richard Sternberg, who now serves as a fellow at the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the National Institute of Health. "My conclusion on this," McDiarmid said, "was that it was a really bad judgment call on the editor's part."
What is it about Dr. Stephen Meyer's paper that has caused such an uproar? Meyer, who holds a Ph.D. from Cambridge University, argued in his paper that the contemporary form of evolutionary theory now dominant in the academy, known as "Neo-Darwinism," fails to account for the development of higher life forms and the complexity of living organisms. Pointing to what evolutionists identify as the "Cambrian explosion," Meyer argued that "the geologically sudden appearance of many new animal body plans" cannot be accounted for by Darwinian theory, "neo" or otherwise.
Accepting the scientific claim that the Cambrian explosion took place "about 530 million years ago," Meyer went on to explain that the "remarkable jump in the specified complexity or 'complex specified information' [CSI] of the biological world" cannot be explained by evolutionary theory.
The heart of Dr. Meyer's argument is found in this scientifically-loaded passage: "Neo-Darwinism seeks to explain the origin of new information, form, and structure as a result of selection acting on randomly arising variation at a very low level within the biological hierarchy, mainly, within the genetic text. Yet the major morphological innovations depend on a specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational hierarchy, a level that DNA alone does not determine. Yet if DNA is not wholly responsible for body plan morphogenesis, then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely, without regard to realistic probabilistic limits, and still not produce a new body plan. Thus, the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot in principle generate novel body plans, including those that first arose in the Cambrian explosion."
In simpler terms, the mechanism of natural selection, central to evolutionary theory, cannot possibly account for the development of so many varied and complex life forms simply by mutations in DNA. Rather, some conscious design--thus requiring a Designer--is necessary to explain the emergence of these life forms.
In the remainder of his paper, Meyer attacks the intellectual inadequacies of evolutionary theory and argues for what is now known as the "design Hypothesis." As he argued, "Conscious and rational agents have, as a part of their powers of purposive intelligence, the capacity to design information-rich parts and to organize those parts into functional information-rich systems and hierarchies." As he went on to assert, "We know of no other causal entity or process that has this capacity." In other words, the development of the multitude of higher life forms found on the planet can be explained only by the guidance of a rational agent--a Designer--whose plan is evident in the design.
Meyer's article was enough to cause hysteria in the evolutionists' camp. Knowing that their theory lacks intellectual credibility, the evolutionists respond by raising the volume, offering the equivalent of scientific shrieks and screams whenever their cherished theory is criticized--much less in one of their own cherished journals. As Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Discovery Institute explained, "Instead of addressing the paper's argument or inviting counterarguments or rebuttal, the society has resorted to affirming what amounts to a doctrinal statement in an effort to stifle scientific debate. They're trying to stop scientific discussion before it even starts."
When the Biological Society of Washington issued its embarrassing apology for publishing the paper, the organization pledged that arguments for Intelligent Design "will not be addressed in future issues of the Proceedings," regardless of whether the paper passes peer review.
From the perspective of panicked evolutionists, the Intelligent Design movement represents a formidable adversary and a constant irritant. The defenders of Intelligent Design are undermining evolutionary theory at multiple levels, and they refuse to go away. The panicked evolutionists respond with name-calling, labeling Intelligent Design proponents as "creationists," thereby hoping to prevent any scientific debate before it starts.
Intelligent Design is not tantamount to the biblical doctrine of creation. Theologically, Intelligent Design falls far short of requiring any affirmation of the doctrine of creation as revealed in the Bible. Nevertheless, it is a useful and important intellectual tool, and a scientific movement with great promise. The real significance of Intelligent Design theory and its related movement is the success with which it undermines the materialistic and naturalistic worldview central to the theory of evolution.
For the Christian believer, the Bible presents the compelling and authoritative case for God's creation of the cosmos. Specifically, the Bible provides us with the ultimate truth concerning human origins and the special creation of human beings as the creatures made in God's own image. Thus, though we believe in more than Intelligent Design, we certainly do not believe in less. We should celebrate the confusion and consternation now so evident among the evolutionists. Dr. Stephen Meyer's article--and the controversy it has spawned--has caught evolutionary scientists with their intellectual pants down.
_______________________________________
R. Albert Mohler, Jr
Stay angry. I'll get back to you after I get on with my life
Because some dummies tried to put false propaganda on the front of the science texts.
What upsets me is that I share 99.9% of my genome with a worm like you. When are you going to retract your libelous accusation about Dan Dennett, which you admit you can't corroborate?
In general, such behaviour could be attributed to laziness, but since the accusation did involve concentration camps, contemptible is a pretty good word choice.
Cheers!
It's not much of a life. It appears to be based on lying to yourself and to others.
I am sure, like a good Christian, that means doing God's will.
No problem.
[For the most part I do my best to ignore these Threads......Blood pressure, and all that stuff *LOL*]
a quick google got this: go goggle.
Dennett portrayed Darwinism as "a universal solvent,
capable of cutting right to the heart of everything in
sight" -- and particularly effective in dissolving religious
beliefs. The most ardent creationist could not have said
it with more conviction, but Dennett's agreement with them
ended there. He despised creationists, arguing that "there
are no forces on this planet more dangerous to us all than
the fanaticisms of fundamentalism." Displaying a degree
of intolerance more characteristic of a fanatic Fundamentalist
than an academic philosopher, he called for "caging" those
who would deliberately misinform children about the natural
world, just as one would cage a threatening wild animal.
"The message is clear," he wrote: "those who will not accomodate,
who will not temper, who insist on keeping only the purest
and wildest strain of their heritage alive, we will be obliged,
reluctantly, to cage or disarm, and we will do our best to
disable the memes [traditions] they fight for." With the
bravado of a man unmindful that only 11 percent of the
public shared his enthusiasm for naturalistic evolution, he
warned parents that if they insisted on teaching their
children "falsehoods -- that the Earth is flat, that 'Man' is
not a product of evolution by natural selection -- then
you must expect, at the very least, that those of us who
have freedom of speech will feel free to describe your
teachings as the spreading of falsehoods, and will attempt
to demonstrate this to your children at our earliest
opportunity." Those who resisted conversion to
Dennett's scientific fundamentalism would be subject
to "quarantine."
Ooh, an antichristian. You're not right wing.
You're a darwinut liberal sympathizer!
So you hold that ichy is a evovled swine?
Ichneumon generally adds helpful links; and if you go onto his about page, has threads going back years in which he contributes quite detailed descriptions--whether cut'n'pasted, or painstakinly entered by him, I don't know.
Right Wing Professor often gets riled much more quickly; and his about page does not indicate that he is in fact a professor (as opposed to a Rush Limbaugh-esque "doctor of democracy").
I suspect part of the problem is that so many of the cre-ites (to coin a term; and I am not implying ALL, shall I just say, a disproportionate share compared to evo-ites)--do not seem to have systematic training in science, so that they are posing different questions than the ones scientists tend to ask, and ask them in vague terms, which are harder to answer mathematically.
Another difficulty is that many crevo-ites do not seem to keep up with where evolutionary theory actually is, and are debating ideas which the scientists hashed out among themselves long ago.
All of this can be quite maddening when you are confronted with the same thing "again, and Again, and AGAIN!" without even the chance to see (as you might if you were in a university setting, dealing with clueless students) their charges maturing and growing in knowledge and discipline.
Cheers!
I think (after a quick Google) that it's a quote from Dembski, discussing Dennet.
Don't post to me.
A lot of the nitpicky attitude of scientists is not there for show, but to make the task of sharing and retrieving knowledge easier, when information overload even within a sub-discipline is a distinct possibility.
Cheers!
I am sure, like a good Christian, that means doing God's will.
Ooh, an antichristian.
My mistake. Sorry.
You said that Dennett called for creationist concentration camps. Still waiting for some corroboration.
You flatter me, ma'am.
Looks like I'm gonna have to respond on entropy too.)
Don't strain yourself.
Unwilling to take a stand, but willing to cheer on a slander? You shame your namesake.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.